Military Bans Removable Media

Viewing 10 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #3035
      jason
      Participant

      Due to the spread of the Agent.btx worm, removable media have been banned from sipr and nipr nets. While the article discussed the army specifically, it sounded like this was going to be implemented for all branches. Seems like a fairly serious situation.

      http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/11/army-bans-usb-d.html

    • #20698
      Michael J. Conway
      Participant

      It surprises me that they have not done this before. I know that the only removable media currently authorized on our classified systems for data transfer are CDs. Of course there are plenty of restrictions on how to use them for this purpose, but as far as other media goes, we are not even allowed to take a thumb drive in to the classified lab. We’ll watch and see how this plays out.

    • #20699
      jason
      Participant

      It certainly does seem to be the logical move. It surprises me that they were this lax about it to begin with.

    • #20700
      Anonymous
      Participant

      well you are only “supposed” to use govt issued usb drives that would only touch other govt systems which “should” stop that, but we all know how well that works…

    • #20701
      RoleReversal
      Participant

      @ChrisG wrote:

      well you are only “supposed” to use govt issued usb drives that would only touch other govt systems which “should” stop that, but we all know how well that works…

      Chris beat me too it  :(. Has anyone read how they intend to enforce this?

      I’m hoping they’ll be some form of edge protection to stop the functionality of USB drives if inserted, rather than ‘please don’t do that’. But from the mention of govt issued devices in the future I’m guessing not. Looks like an way to create scapegoats rather than address the fundamental issues.

      From those in the know does the military not already have a boiler plate AUP stating ‘don’t connect nasty things to our network’? If so, how is this different?

    • #20702
      Anonymous
      Participant

      ha i win!

      they do have the AUP, i think this is a “dont do anything until your drive has been scanned” scenario, just to curb the spread.  least thats what the article said.

    • #20703
      jason
      Participant

      @ChrisG wrote:

      i think this is a “dont do anything until your drive has been scanned” scenario, just to curb the spread.

      Which will of course be totally useless if you turn right back around and plug it into your spammy, malware-ridden, porn storage device again.

    • #20704
      Anonymous
      Participant

      exactly

    • #20705
      Michael J. Conway
      Participant

      It cracks me up, but you are right about the AUP: scan then use….. Of course we all know that only works if there is a signature for the malware and IF the end user actually does scan it. Oh well….

    • #20706
      jason
      Participant

      Another article with slightly more detail on the specifics of the malware issue:

      http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-na-cyberattack28-2008nov28,0,230046.story

    • #20707
      Anonymous
      Participant

      @sgt_mjc wrote:

      It cracks me up, but you are right about the AUP: scan then use….. Of course we all know that only works if there is a signature for the malware and IF the end user actually does scan it. Oh well….

      what you mean all AV doesnt find custom written malware…oops.

Viewing 10 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Copyright ©2020 Caendra, Inc.

Contact Us

Thoughts, suggestions, issues? Send us an email, and we'll get back to you.

Sending

Sign in with Caendra

Forgot password?Sign up

Forgot your details?